Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 11:24:47 05/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 1999 at 13:32:57, Goette Patrick wrote: >Hello, > >As I am a new user of Chess Master 6000 ( I never had a former version of CM >before ) I would like to know, according to your experience with this software, >if CM has a particular reputation of being weak in the positional play, in >opposition with its tactical play and its force in the finals. Oops, I do not think CM6000 is very strong in the ending. All the current programs misplay the ending quite frequently. >Let me explain : I just tested 3 programs with the chess test LCTII ( of >Louguet, a french author ). Here are the results I obtained on my 166 Mz Pentium >with 32 Mo Ram (hashtables homogeneized) : > > Virtual Chess 1.02 Hiarcs 6.0 CM6000 > >Positional play : 200/420 pts= 47.6% 210/420=50% 145/420=34.5% > >Tactical play : 195/360 = 54% 235/360=65.3% 280/360=77.8% > >Finals : 60/270=22% 95/270=35.2% 120/270=44.4% > >TOTAL 2355 ELO(according to LCTII) 2440 ELO 2445 ELO (!) > > >Well my questions are these : > >How do you explain the relative weakness of CM600O performance in positional >play in comparison with the 2 other programs ? > >What is the relevance of LCTII test to evaluate the strength of programs, when >we know the true ELO rating of CM6000 is at least 100 points higher ? > It has no relevance. Playing strenght is unrelated to scores in testsuites. >What are the tests the more relevant to evaluate the true ELO-rating of a chess >program ? ( I mean whose results get close to the ELO estimated through many and >many games played as usual ) ? > No one. You can "design" a test that evaluates current chess programs "accurately", but it will fail badly with future programs. >Every remark, opinion, explanation welcome. >Patrick Goette >patrick.goette@smile.ch
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.